W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2011

Re: ANN: Modular Unified Tagging Ontology (MUTO)

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:40:33 -0500
Message-ID: <4EC66E61.6040900@openlinksw.com>
To: public-lod@w3.org
On 11/18/11 5:24 AM, Steffen Lohmann wrote:
> On 17.11.2011 20:03, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> Hi Steffen,
>>
>> On 17 Nov 2011, at 14:34, Steffen Lohmann wrote:
>>> MUTO should thus not be considered as yet another tagging ontology 
>>> but as a unification of existing approaches.
>> I'm curious why you decided not to include mappings (equivalentClass, 
>> subProperty etc) to the existing approaches.
>
> Good point, Richard. I thought about it but finally decided to 
> separate these alignments from the core ontology - therefore the "MUTO 
> Mappings Module" (http://muto.socialtagging.org/core/v1.html#Modules).
>
> SIOC and SKOS can be nicely reused but aligning MUTO with the nine 
> reviewed tagging ontologies is challenging and would result in a 
> number of inconsistencies. This is mainly due to a different 
> conceptual understanding of tagging and folksonomies in the various 
> ontologies. To give some examples:
>
> - Are tags with same labels merged in the ontology (i.e. are they one 
> instance)?
> - Is the number of tags per tagging limited to one or not?
> - In case of semantic tagging: Are single tags or complete taggings 
> disambiguated?
> - How are the creators of taggings linked?
> - Are tags from private taggings visible to other users or not?
>
> Apart from that, I would have risk that MUTO is no longer OWL Lite/DL 
> which I consider important for a tagging ontology (reasoning of 
> folksonomies).
>
> The current version of the MUTO Mappings Module provides alignments to 
> Newman's popular TAGS ontology (mainly for compatibility reasons). 
> Have a look at it and you'll get an idea of the difficulties in 
> correctly aligning MUTO with existing tagging ontologies.
>
> Best,
> Steffen
>
Steffen,

Mappings loaded, some links demonstrating effects:

1. 
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.org%2Fmuto%2Fcore%23hasCreator 
-- subPropertyOf relation with sioc:has_creator

2. 
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frdfs.org%2Fsioc%2Fns%23has_creator 
-- SIOC ontology

3. 
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.openlinksw.com%2Fschemas%2Fgoogleplus%23comment_actor 
-- Google+ ontology

4. 
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.openlinksw.com%2Fschemas%2Fgoogleplus%23Actor 
-- G+ ontology instance data.

If I use your mapping ontology as basis for an inference rule, I won't 
need the steps above since the class instances will manifest for any 
classes  in owl:equivalentClass relations. Same thing applies with our 
ontologies which map across many ontologies, basically the power of OWL 
inference enables one coral lots of instance data via inverse relations :-)


BTW - you can substitute linkeddata.uriburner.com with 
lod.openlinksw.com re., URLs above and perform similar exploration 
against the larger and more powerful LOD Cloud cache instance we maintain.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen








Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 14:41:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:36 UTC